-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 81
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[RFC] TVMScript Metaprogramming #79
Changes from 3 commits
5c44378
57ac4da
92ed7fc
dd70a1a
f33df62
a15adf3
d6328f8
6c3a956
e0dc6b8
e365255
773b458
123dc4b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,398 @@ | ||
- Feature Name: tvmscript-metaprogramming | ||
- Start Date: 2022-06-16 | ||
- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#79](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/79) | ||
- GitHub Issue: [apache/tvm#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/0000) | ||
- Co-Authors: Yaxing Cai ([**@cyx-6**](https://github.com/cyx-6), main implementation), Lite Ye | ||
([**@yelite**](https://github.com/yelite)), Yong Wu | ||
([**@yongwww**](https://github.com/yongwww)), Yuchen Jin | ||
([**@YuchenJin**](https://github.com/YuchenJin)), Eric Lunderberg | ||
([**@Lunderberg**](https://github.com/Lunderberg)), Masahiro Masuda | ||
([**@masahi**](https://github.com/masahi)), Junru Shao | ||
([**@junrushao1994**](https://github.com/junrushao1994), main designer) | ||
|
||
# Summary | ||
[summary]: #summary | ||
|
||
This RFC proposes a new TVMScript parser infrastructure, supporting extensive | ||
metaprogramming and syntactic sugars. The new infrastructure is IR-agnostic, | ||
treating TIR just as one of dialects. Additionally, the new infrastructure will | ||
provide better tooling around Python ecosystem (pylint, mypy, etc.). | ||
|
||
# Motivation | ||
[motivation]: #motivation | ||
|
||
**What is TVMScript**. | ||
Check [Blitz Course to TensorIR](https://tvm.apache.org/docs/tutorial/tensor_ir_blitz_course.html) and | ||
[TVMScript Unified Printer RFC](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/74/files#diff-6965a40ad8df7618ae68e11c88f924542a506c74a931cc3011ae9f99989b5f51R20-R26) | ||
for an introduction into TVMScript. | ||
|
||
**What is metaprogramming.** In the context of TVMScript, metaprogramming means | ||
a programmable way to control IR generation. For example, in | ||
https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/11097, a metaprogramming feature was added | ||
to the TVMScript parser, allows users to programmably control the shapes of the | ||
input buffers of a `PrimFunc`. | ||
|
||
### Limitation of current design | ||
|
||
The current parser lacks capability on generic metaprogramming that allows user | ||
to have more control on IR construction. This makes it challenging to support | ||
operators like NMS (non-maximum suppression, which is crucial to object | ||
detection model). There is an implementation of NMS at | ||
[python/tvm/topi/cuda/nms.py#L367-L386](https://github.com/apache/tvm/blob/d0650bad66d0ff89a01347537021bc442a98c223/python/tvm/topi/cuda/nms.py#L367-L386). | ||
The implementation of NMS-like operators requires rank-polymorphism and the | ||
ability to interleave host program with TVMScript, which is difficult to be | ||
implemented under the current design. | ||
|
||
TVMScript also needs reasonable support on Python tooling. Currently it doesn’t | ||
play nicely with pylint and mypy. For example, | ||
[test_meta_schedule_postproc_rewrite_tensorize.py](https://github.com/apache/tvm/blob/d0650bad66d0ff89a01347537021bc442a98c223/tests/python/unittest/test_meta_schedule_postproc_rewrite_tensorize.py) | ||
has 100+ warnings from pylint within only 500 hundred lines of code. This | ||
creates confusion to the user and leaves an impression that TVMScript isn’t a | ||
mature product and not production-ready. Even though it’s something that can be | ||
incrementally improved under the current design, we believe it’s easier to get | ||
an ideal result if we have a design with the tooling support in mind. | ||
|
||
The current design also lacks of unified approach for different IRs. At | ||
[https://github.com/tlc-pack/relax/tree/relax/python/tvm/script/relax](https://github.com/tlc-pack/relax/tree/relax/python/tvm/script/relax), | ||
a mature implementation of TVMScript parser is maintained for Relax. But it’s | ||
hard to extend if we want to support more IRs for TVM unity. | ||
|
||
To conclude, with this RFC, we want to: | ||
|
||
1. Add more metaprogramming features to TVMScript, making it easier for TVM | ||
developers to write complicated operators. | ||
2. Improve tooling and documentation of TVMScript, reducing the friction for an | ||
tkonolige marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
average machine learning practitioner to use TVMScript. | ||
3. Modularize and infrastructuralize the TVMScript parser, lowering the cost to | ||
implement parser for new IR. | ||
|
||
|
||
# Guide-level explanation | ||
[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation | ||
|
||
## Metaprogramming features to support | ||
|
||
### (F1) Template Metaprogramming | ||
|
||
Users should be able to use variables from outer scope in the TVMScript | ||
function/class. The parsed result should be identical to function/class with | ||
the variable replaced by its value. For instance, | ||
|
||
```python | ||
@T.prim_func | ||
def matmul( | ||
A: T.Buffer[(128, 128)], | ||
) -> None: | ||
... | ||
|
||
def gen_matmul(n, m) -> None: | ||
@T.prim_func | ||
def f(A: T.Buffer[(n, m)]): | ||
... | ||
return f | ||
|
||
f = gen_matmul(n=128, m=128) # `f` should be identical to `matmul` | ||
``` | ||
|
||
This is already partially supported by https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/11097 | ||
for using `PrimExpr` captured by outer function. With the new parser, we want | ||
to support this feature in more places and with more variable types. | ||
|
||
### (F2) Rank-polymorphism | ||
|
||
Users should be able to write a single function to handle different ranks of | ||
input buffers (different numbers of dimensions). For example, user should be | ||
able to write a generic function to do broadcast add, | ||
|
||
```python | ||
def broadcast_add(a, b, c): | ||
@T.prim_func | ||
def f( | ||
A: T.BufferFrom(a), | ||
B: T.BufferFrom(b), | ||
C: T.BufferFrom(c), | ||
) -> None: | ||
for i, i_a, i_b in T.some_broadcast_method(A.shape, B.shape): | ||
with T.block(): | ||
C[*i] = A[*i_a] + B[*i_b] | ||
|
||
broadcast_add( | ||
a = Buffer((128, 1), "float32"), | ||
b = Buffer((1, 128), "float32"), | ||
c = Buffer((128, 128), "float32"), | ||
) | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### (F3) Sugar: TE Compute in TIR | ||
|
||
Users should be able to replace boilerplate code with a function call, which’s | ||
expanded to large chunk of code during parsing. For example, we may want to use | ||
TE’s compute-like syntax to replace nested loop, | ||
|
||
```python | ||
@T.prim_func | ||
def te_compute_sugar( | ||
A: T.Buffer[(128, 128)], | ||
B: T.Buffer[(128, 128)], | ||
) -> None: | ||
... | ||
C = T.compute((128, 128), lambda i, j: A[i, j] + B[i, j]) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. curious if you may want to apply rewrite rules here, how would that look? how big should we go here? is it worth including this as "metaprogramming" coupled with the parser, or should we simply make it possible to "sew" fragments of TVMScript together, whether they are hand-written or machine-generated? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If so, the answer is no. To implement such a feature, there is absolutely no need to change the core parser at all. We only need to add a method in the IRBuilder: def compute(shape, f_compute) -> None: ... which will internally call other methods the IRBuilder offers, for example in our case is: # note it can be implemented in either C++ or python without the parser to do anything
C = T.alloc_buffer(*shape)
with T.grid(*shape) as loop_vars:
with T.block("some_name"):
T.buffer_store(C, shape, f_compute(*loop_vars)) |
||
... | ||
|
||
## expands to ====> | ||
|
||
@T.prim_func | ||
def te_compute_expanded( | ||
A: T.Buffer[(128, 128)], | ||
B: T.Buffer[(128, 128)], | ||
) -> None: | ||
... | ||
for i in range(128): | ||
for j in range(128): | ||
with T.block("..."): | ||
C[i, j] = A[i, j] + B[i, j] | ||
... | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### (F4) Interleave host program and TVMScript program to customize metaprogramming | ||
|
||
As an escape hatch from writing code to be parsed by the TVMScript | ||
parser, users should be able to write imperative code to construct IR nodes | ||
tkonolige marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
directly and embed it inside regular TVMScript. Those code will be evaluated | ||
by the Python interpreter when parsing. This gives users the ultimate tool when | ||
TVMScript isn’t expressible enough for their use cases. For example, at | ||
[python/tvm/topi/vision/nms.py#L380-L431](https://github.com/apache/tvm/blob/3cb4597ed48360e3f3d80161d1c03f833072d28e/python/tvm/topi/vision/nms.py#L380-L431), | ||
there are blocks of repetitive code on computing the coordinates of the four | ||
corners of bounding box. This can be simplified as: | ||
|
||
```python | ||
# Before, without IRBuilder interleaving | ||
@T.prim_func | ||
def nms(...): | ||
... | ||
for i in range(batch_size): | ||
... | ||
a_l = min( | ||
output[batch_idx, box_a_idx, box_start_idx], | ||
output[batch_idx, box_a_idx, box_start_idx + 2], | ||
) | ||
a_t = min( | ||
output[batch_idx, box_a_idx, box_start_idx + 1], | ||
output[batch_idx, box_a_idx, box_start_idx + 3], | ||
) | ||
a_r = max( | ||
output[batch_idx, box_a_idx, box_start_idx], | ||
output[batch_idx, box_a_idx, box_start_idx + 2], | ||
) | ||
a_b = max( | ||
output[batch_idx, box_a_idx, box_start_idx + 1], | ||
output[batch_idx, box_a_idx, box_start_idx + 3], | ||
) | ||
... | ||
for k in range(j): | ||
check_iou = ... | ||
... | ||
if check_iou > 0: | ||
# b_l: left, b_t: top, b_r: right, b_b: bottom | ||
b_l = min( | ||
output[batch_idx, box_b_idx, box_start_idx], | ||
output[batch_idx, box_b_idx, box_start_idx + 2], | ||
) | ||
b_t = min( | ||
output[batch_idx, box_b_idx, box_start_idx + 1], | ||
output[batch_idx, box_b_idx, box_start_idx + 3], | ||
) | ||
b_r = max( | ||
output[batch_idx, box_b_idx, box_start_idx], | ||
output[batch_idx, box_b_idx, box_start_idx + 2], | ||
) | ||
b_b = max( | ||
output[batch_idx, box_b_idx, box_start_idx + 1], | ||
output[batch_idx, box_b_idx, box_start_idx + 3], | ||
) | ||
... | ||
|
||
# With IRBuilder interleaving: | ||
|
||
from tvm.script import tir as T | ||
|
||
def get_box_coordinates(output, batch_idx, box_idx, box_start_idx): | ||
"""a method executed by python interpreter""" | ||
box_l = T.min( | ||
output[batch_idx, box_idx, box_start_idx], | ||
output[batch_idx, box_idx, box_start_idx + 2], | ||
) # type(box_l) is PrimExpr | ||
... # Repeat for other coordinates | ||
return box_l, box_t, box_r, box_b | ||
|
||
@T.prim_func(capture=[get_box_coordinates]) | ||
def nms(...): | ||
... | ||
for i in range(batch_size): | ||
... | ||
a_l, a_t, a_r, a_b = get_box_coordinates(output, batch_idx, box_a_idx, box_start_idx) | ||
... | ||
for k in range(j): | ||
check_iou = ... | ||
... | ||
if check_iou > 0: | ||
b_l, b_t, b_r, b_b = get_box_coordinates(output, batch_idx, box_b_idx, box_start_idx) | ||
... | ||
``` | ||
|
||
# Reference-level explanation | ||
tkonolige marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation | ||
|
||
## IRBuilder as Core | ||
|
||
As the foundation of IR construction, we will provide a set of APIs called | ||
IRBuilder to let user construct IR imperatively. IRBuilder will be used by the | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This appears to be a separate IRBuilder from There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The IRBuilder module will be Also as in our private discussion,
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you add this to the RFC? |
||
parser, as well as by users directly as described in the feature F4. IRBuilder | ||
allows user to write code in a style that’s similar to TVMScript, while it’s | ||
being executed as host program. For example, | ||
|
||
```python | ||
from tvm.script.builder import Builder, def_, def_many | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. How does the feature set of There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The |
||
from tvm.script import tir as T | ||
|
||
with Builder() as b: | ||
with T.prim_func(): | ||
T.func_name("main") | ||
buffer_a = T.Buffer((128, 128, 128), "float32") | ||
buffer_b = T.Buffer((128, 128, 128), "float32") | ||
arg_a = T.arg("A", buffer_a) | ||
arg_b = T.arg("B", buffer_b) | ||
with T.grid(128, 128, 128) as (i, j, k): | ||
def_many(["i", "j", "k"], [i, j, k]) | ||
with T.block(name="block"): | ||
vi = def_("vi", T.axis.spatial(128, i)) | ||
vj = def_("vj", T.axis.spatial(128, j)) | ||
vk = def_("vk", T.axis.reduce(128, k)) | ||
|
||
f = b.get() # f is a PrimFunc | ||
``` | ||
|
||
produces similar result to | ||
yelite marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
```python | ||
@T.prim_func | ||
def main( | ||
A: T.Buffer(shape=(128, 128, 128), dtype="float32"), | ||
B: T.Buffer(shape=(128, 128, 128), dtype="float32"), | ||
) -> None: | ||
for i, j, k in T.grid(128, 128, 128): | ||
with T.block("block"): | ||
vi = T.axis.S(128, i) | ||
vj = T.axis.S(128, j) | ||
vk = T.axis.R(128, k) | ||
``` | ||
|
||
The implementation of IRBuilder will be in C++ so that it can be used in an | ||
environment without Python. Python binding will be created to expose IRBuilder | ||
Comment on lines
+295
to
+296
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Another good motivation for having IRBuilder in C++ is that it could be used with other languages like rust. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, and this complement to the design of |
||
to TVMScript parser. | ||
|
||
## Parse-time evaluation | ||
|
||
To support metaprogramming, the TVMScript parser needs to evaluate the | ||
expression using Python interpreter. All metaprogramming | ||
features we discussed above can be implemented through this parse-time | ||
evaluation. Using the same `gen_matmul` example from F1, | ||
|
||
```python | ||
def gen_matmul(n, m) -> None: | ||
@T.prim_func | ||
def f(A: T.Buffer[(n, m)]): | ||
... | ||
return f | ||
``` | ||
|
||
What parser does here is to: | ||
|
||
1. Collect the environment inside `gen_matmul`, getting a dictionary | ||
1. All primitive types will be captured automatically, while advanced types | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Could you list the types that are supported for capture? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Sure, it's updated. It will auto capture |
||
(like function) needs to be explicitly declared in the decorator to be | ||
captured (for example, `@T.prim_func(capture=[get_box_coordinates])`) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think it would be more consistent to capture all values explicitly. It avoids the problem of users accidentally capturing a variable without knowing it. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. In an ideal world we would want to capture everything implicitly, to match the closure behavior in Python. However, due to the usage of We will provide detailed error message if user tries to use a variable that should have been explicitly captured, to compensate the potential errors caused by this inconsistency. |
||
2. Call the corresponding function from IRBuilder, as the parser visits the AST | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Just to clarify, what you are saying here is that the parser will not construct AST nodes directly and it will instead use the new IRBuilder infrastructure to construct the AST? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, the IRBuilder is responsible for constructing the IR graph and the parser can be considered as a thin layer built on the IRBuilder. I updated the RFC to better clarify this. |
||
of function `f`. | ||
1. When visiting the function argument, call `eval` on its type annotation, | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. one thing to watch out for is that type annotations can be str to avoid circular imports here There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah it's definitely a good point in general. In our particular case, our type system is rather restrictive to those only TVM IR could represent (mostly |
||
with the environment captured in the first step. | ||
2. `T.Buffer[(n, m)]` gets evaluated to a value with type `tir.Buffer`. | ||
3. Call the IRBuilder API `T.arg("A", buffer)` to add an arg to the function | ||
that’s being constructed | ||
|
||
Another example, | ||
|
||
```python | ||
for *i in T.grid(*A.shape): | ||
... | ||
``` | ||
|
||
The parser will: | ||
|
||
1. Evaluate the expression `T.grid(*A.shape)` by the step described above. | ||
`T.grid` returns a value that is nearly equivalent to `List[Var]`. | ||
2. Call `exec` on a specially constructed statement `*i = __tvm_rhs_var__`, | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. maybe it'd be helpful to note here that using There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is a good question. The original RFC indeed lacks some discussion on the necessity and security implication behind the usage of To answer this comment directly, the left hand side of assignment can get very complicated, like
It's much easier to use
I think it's a little bit far-fetched. I agree that the usage of There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is an interesting discussion and both sides seem to have valid points - There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It will be quite challenging to have a comprehensive guideline over the usage of Another effect of using
User would expect:
To minimize the surprise to users, we ask user to explicitly capture those function before they can be evaluated in the parser, to make it clear that the timing of evaluation is different than ordinary Python code. |
||
with `locals` that maps `__tvm_rhs_var__` to the value evaluated in step 1. | ||
3. Collect the value of `i` from the `locals` dictionary | ||
4. Call the IRBuilder API `def_many(["i"], [i])` | ||
|
||
By running `eval` and `exec` provided by the Python interpreter, we can implement | ||
yelite marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
language features which are difficult to implement manually, and also make sure | ||
TVMScript has the same semantics on expression compared to regular Python code. | ||
|
||
## Parser Registration | ||
|
||
The logic of how to process a particular Python syntax node is registered | ||
through decorator. For example, | ||
Comment on lines
+402
to
+403
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Could you explain why we want to register parsers for specific fragments instead of calling them explicitly. Using a registration mechanism makes it a lot harder to understand the codebase. Registrations can be split over multiple files and you have to go on a wild chase through the codebase to find what you are looking for. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Indeed sometimes registration results in code being split over many files and make it hard to trace how things are connected together. In our case though, all registered parsing function for a particular IR will be centralized in a single file. Another benefit of not calling them directly is that it's easier to test individual part of the parser. |
||
|
||
```python | ||
@dispatch.register(token="tir", type_name="For") | ||
def visit_for(self: Parser, node: doc.For) -> None: | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm a little confused at the type signature here. Shouldn't the visitor return an AST fragment so that the visit statements can be use recursively? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The parser is a thin wrapper of the IRBuilder API and doesn't directly construct IR graph. IRBuilder uses thread local store for builder state so there is no need to return things from visit methods. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can you explain why the granularity for registering parsers is at the individual token level and not at the language level. Your example here is @dispatch.register(token="tir", type_name="For")
def visit_for(self: Parser, node: doc.For) -> None:
... But I'd expect @dispatch.register(language="tir")
class TIRParser:
def parse_for(...):
...
def parse_with(...):
... I don't understand why you would need the extension point of the language to be on a per token basis. |
||
... | ||
``` | ||
|
||
handles the transformation of Python `For` node. The `token="tir"` in the | ||
decorator means that the handler is for TIR. `self: Parser` has all the | ||
infrastructural API and maintains a stack of `token` to determine which | ||
function to dispatch to. This makes embedding different IR possible (for | ||
example, embedding TIR in Relax). The folder structure will look like | ||
|
||
``` | ||
python/tvm/script/ | ||
└── parser | ||
├── core | ||
│ └── ... # Parser infrastructure | ||
├── tir # TIR dialect | ||
│ └── ... | ||
└── relax # Hypothetical Relax dialect (not part of our RFC) | ||
└── ... | ||
``` | ||
|
||
|
||
# Drawbacks | ||
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks | ||
|
||
N/A | ||
|
||
# Rationale and alternatives | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There are definitely different approaches for doing meta programming like lisp macro vs c macros. Could you add a little discussion on that here? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. One of the design constraint is that TVMScript should not deviate from Python. All features proposed in this RFC follows Python's semantics and doesn't create foreign syntax or language features. Neither lisp macro or C macro is relevant to the design here. I updated the RFC to include a discussion on metaprogramming features from Taichi and Triton per your other feedback. |
||
[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives | ||
|
||
N/A | ||
|
||
# Prior art | ||
[prior-art]: #prior-art | ||
tkonolige marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
- Hybrid Script: [https://tvm.apache.org/docs/reference/langref/hybrid_script.html](https://tvm.apache.org/docs/reference/langref/hybrid_script.html) | ||
- RFC for TVMScript: [https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-hybrid-script-support-for-tir/7516](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-hybrid-script-support-for-tir/7516) | ||
- Taichi: [https://www.taichi-lang.org](https://www.taichi-lang.org/) | ||
- Triton: [http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~htk/publication/2019-mapl-tillet-kung-cox.pdf](http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~htk/publication/2019-mapl-tillet-kung-cox.pdf) | ||
|
||
# Unresolved questions | ||
[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions | ||
|
||
N/A | ||
|
||
# Future possibilities | ||
[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities | ||
|
||
N/A |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i think talking about more IRs without context might sound a bit scary to some readers...perhaps channeling the spirit of YAGNI we should avoid over-generalizing here. I think having 1 parser for Relax and TIR is quite reasonable; beyond that we might consider waiting til we have more details.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @areusch for your feedback! The technique itself could sound like scary or over-generalized, but the fact is it's a better implementation with better maintainability: